Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @09:37AM
from the it-can-please-hurry-up-while-I'm-in-my-30s dept.

First time accepted submitter hrb1979 writes "Thought I'd share an interview with Kang Zhao — the professor behind the machine learning algorithm which could transform online dating. His algorithm takes into account both a user's tastes (in an approach similar to the Netflix recommendation engine) and their attractiveness (by analyzing how many responses they get) — enabling the machine to 'learn' and hence propose higher potential matches. His research was recently covered in both a Forbes' article and the MIT Technology Review, though this interview provides more depth and color."

All the algorithms in the world aren't going to help when the intersection of "people you'd care to date" and "people who'd care to date you" is empty. What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.

People are complex, I would likely get no hits if I joined a dating site. After reading about my career you would think either the photo is a fake or the profile description. I don't fit with how Hollywood portrays the computer nerd as a matter of fact most of the people I work with don't.

My wife and I have a running joke, I'm her husband the nerd but when her new friends or coworkers meet me they are surprised by my long blond hair, jeans, and t-shirt because I'm a regular guy, I hit the heavy bag, I like

Most of the people in my office are very aware that sitting at a desk 9-12 hours a day is bad after one of our younger coworkers managed to go to the hospital for a back problem because he sneezed. Small portable exercise equipment is not uncommon.

We have a lot of musicians also, there used to be a couple bands that worked in our Tier I helpdesk, a 60,70,80,90s rock/metal cover band and a metal core band. They would bring their guitars in and have them setting up in their cubicles. {can't leave them in the

No kidding. I've known a few people who aren't exactly the best catches who refuse to date anybody who looks anything less than a supermodel.

If you're 80 pounds overweight, or a raging nerd, or whatever, and you refuse to date someone who isn't perfect... you're going to be single and lonely for a long time.

I've known way too many people with their own defects (and who among us doesn't have them, especially here) who looked at potential partners and turned up their nose for stupid reasons -- a little overweight, wears glasses, curly hair.

Not saying you need to date the ugliest person you can find, but having a realistic expectation of what you might actually get goes a long way.

Don't be the Comic Book Guy saying "Oh, I've wasted my life" and passing up opportunities. If you're a 5, don't shoot for a 10.

I think the issue is that nobody is perfect. There is no single "ideal" person, male or female. Somebody who comes from a society with arranged marriages explained this to me, and why those relationships often end up working out better. Because both people going into it know that it is something they are going to have to work on, and that not everything about their relationship will be perfect. I'm not saying that arranged marriages are the right answer, but going into a relationship with the expectation that you'll have to work through difficulties can help a lot. So many people give up at the first sign of a problem. They want everything to come easy, be it with relationships, school, jobs, and any other aspect of life.

Nature vs. Nurture. At the end of the day, relationships may not last because people are just too different. While there's adaptability, the rate in which people culturally change slows as they get older. Also, the brain is hard-wired for certain predispositions. Sometimes the natural behavior of one person will never compliment that of another. In some cases, enough cultural change will be enough to offset that persons natural behavior. It really is a balance between nature vs. nurture that determines the

Sounds like "realistic expectations" to me. Another comment from a similar colleague: Arranged marriages (at the level his family expected) were more like business partnerships put together by VCs. The families and/or their agents/matchmakers were looking for good combinations who would not have met by chance - even if they went to the same school or trade show (if only because genders are carefully polite in their culture).

This. However, I will add something: Having similar goals and work ethic is important. I think, ultimately, people can work through almost any differences with a positive outcome, as long as their religion, work ethic, and life goals are similar. Pretty much the 'big picture' stuff. Of the girls I dated before marrying my wife, I can honestly say that I *could* have made it work with any of them, with the exception of those points. Religion is, frankly, flexible enough that it doesn't seem to need to be an exact fit unless one of the people involved is totally consumed by their religion; the two real important points, though, is whether the two people are going in the same direction.
One of my former girlfriends was extremely lazy. She wound up marrying a guy who fits her perfectly; a disabled vet (dare I call him that? He was in the Army for 1 year before being medically discharged, never got deployed), and they now live on welfare while neither of them works, instead spending their foodstamps on alcohol & cigarettes, and their time making babies.
Another girl I dated was headed through college with the goal of becoming a middle manager for a large corporation. I'm not sure where she is today, but last I knew, she was getting married to a guy who didn't really have a career goal; seems like a perfect fit to me, since it seems most middle managers need to relocate a few times.
Now, for contrast: My goals were to become self-employed and start a chain of electronic shops. Early on, that meant many 16+-hour-days with very little pay. I'm now past the really hard part of starting a business, and am well on my way to opening my second shop. The girl I am proud to call my wife is a perfect fit. She's a hard worker, her life goal was basically to spend as much time with family as possible, and she's good at seeing 'the big picture'; we've been married for almost 6 years now, and there's no question that we're a perfect match. When we first met, our interests, tastes in music, hobbies, food preferences, culture, families -- they were all pretty different. Of course, in the past decade or so, we've gradually become more alike, but ultimately it all really had no bearing on our happiness. The only thing that mattered was that we were going the same direction.
Also worth noting: we met on the Internet and became friends before we met in person or really got a good idea of what each other looked like. We didn't base our relationship on physical attraction, but rather on friendship.

I have to tell you that if the woman who wants to be a housewife isn't herself a hard worker then it's never going to work out. Maintaining a house takes a lot of effort. Now if a woman wants to be well kept then you need to start involving servants to maintain the house and that's a whole different prospect. But your implication ('more ambitious') that a housewife doesn't have to work very hard is fairly insulting to the many good women (and some men) who choose that path in order to make their families

Looks are pretty much unimportant, or rather if you are halfway sane you do not want to date anybody looking like a "supermodel". It either comes with neuroses or a huge ego not justified by anything. One the other hand, people dating on looks may just get what they deserve.

I agree with you, but I've also known someone who is 100+ pounds overweight who outright refuses to date women who are also a little on the heavy side. It's hard not to think "have you really looked at yourself in a mirror?"

Some people just have completely unrealistic expectations about who they might potentially be able to date.

Me, I figure find someone you can get along with and have things in common with, and the rest is just details.

I think the problem is more that these people have a complete unrealistic self-image. For tech people, you can observe that regularly in forums: The ones claiming the highest authority are typically somewhere from clueless to mediocre. I think this is the same effect at work. On the plus side, this means far less likelihood of these idiots reproducing, so I do not believe "fixing" this is desirable.

I think the problem is more that these people have a complete unrealistic self-image. For tech people, you can observe that regularly in forums: The ones claiming the highest authority are typically somewhere from clueless to mediocre. I think this is the same effect at work. On the plus side, this means far less likelihood of these idiots reproducing, so I do not believe "fixing" this is desirable.

That may be a different issue: the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org]. Unless social grace can be considered an "expertise", which is an interesting philosophical notion.

"That may be a different issue: the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org]. Unless social grace can be considered an "expertise", which is an interesting philosophical notion."

I think it is. Among all the people I know, the really smart ones tend to be the humble ones. You almost have to drag it out of one of them that he got a top (they rank you numerically) degree at Oxford and a robotics phd from Cambridge. One of those guy's who'd be able to teach you a new concept after the two of you had just read the

Looks are pretty much unimportant, or rather if you are halfway sane you do not want to date anybody looking like a "supermodel". It either comes with neuroses or a huge ego not justified by anything.

There's a big difference between only dating supermodels and refusing to date someone who's extremely unattractive (for instance, morbidly obese). A lot of men avoid overly-attractive women as they assume they're "high maintenance", and look for women in the next tier down (the "girl next door" type); they want someone who's attractive, but not so beautiful that they're going to be a PITA and have those neuroses you talk of (and demand he spend all kinds of money on her so she can have weekly spa treatments, ridiculously expensive designer clothes, etc.). This doesn't mean they're willing to date a woman who's 300 pounds.

Looks are important: if you're not at all physically attracted to someone, you're not going to have an easy time maintaining a romantic relationship with them. For men, you may have serious problems "getting it up" if you don't find the woman at least somewhat attractive.

A marriage without chemistry is going to be difficult. Even in arranged marriages, chemistry is considered -- the mothers are looking for someone who will make their offspring both happy and secure, and will accept and be accepted by the rest of the family. (Of course, this ignores marrying-for-money and political marriages, but these are not the norm!)

Actually not - from what I've heard the research suggests that as a rule guys tend to have a pretty good idea what we're looking for before we ever get involved with a woman. If we're looking to get laid, the relationship probably won't develop any further than that. If we're looking for something more, then we'll tend to stick around at least until it becomes clear she's not the one.

Actually not - from what I've heard the research suggests that as a rule guys tend to have a pretty good idea what we're looking for before we ever get involved with a woman. If we're looking to get laid, the relationship probably won't develop any further than that. If we're looking for something more, then we'll tend to stick around at least until it becomes clear she's not the one.

Yeah, but after the usual period, if she's not giving you any...you're not gonna hang around much longer to find out anythin

Looks are pretty much unimportant, or rather if you are halfway sane you do not want to date anybody looking like a "supermodel". It either comes with neuroses or a huge ego not justified by anything. One the other hand, people dating on looks may just get what they deserve.

Err, I dunno. Like the old saying goes:

Beauty is skin deep

Ugly is to the bone

Beauty always fades away

But ugly holds it own....

:)

But on a serious note...attractions begins, especially with men...visually.

No, you look around and see the ones that are good looking and fit your image of a good looking chick

Everyone is attracted to looks somewhat, but I think it depends on your outlook. Your stereotypical sexist pig may do exactly what you describe, but for most people the image is deeper than physical attractiveness - i.e. the way someone moves gives an indication of their personality, as do their facial expressions. This is what grabs people, rather than bone symmetry and breast size.

are you going to be happy fucking someone that isn't attractive to you

Problem is that's all you get on dating websites. A photo, probably airbrushed. Some generic interests, maybe a paragraph written by the person. You have to be willing to contact a lot of people to find ones you might really get on with.

I don't think you got it right. There are people who are not much into dating at all, and while they might not say no to a supermodel, most other people to them are just not worth the hassle. They don't put much effort into dating at all, and if they refuse a date, it's not because they think they could do better, it's because they simply aren't interested. Not everyone boosts their self-esteem by trying to score as many dates as possible.

Actually, it's not so easy, as a 1..10 scale is not really covering anything. I would for instance have a problem dating a devout, pious woman, though she might be attractive by most other criteria. On the other hand, if she appears bookish and has excellent verbal skills (or even be bilingual), I could be very interested. For some reason I seem to fall for some quirks in the personality of people. I am really bad at estimating other people's intelligence, but I like it if they appear to think strategically

The men who have figured out that game know how to spot the women with low self esteem. Women with low self esteem need the sex to feel desired to feel good about themselves.

Of course, low esteem women definitely present a "target rich environment", but I'm not talking just about that...if you know how to come off as confident in yourself, have a bit of a sense of humor, and KNOW how to get in a womans head, you have a very good chance of getting her into bed, and more if you want it.

I'm always surprised when I run into the contrary examples of women dating men who are by most measures less attractive than they are.

The two examples that come to the top of my head are both good friends of my wife and I.

One woman is in top physical shape (runs like 25 miles a week), high end corporate job (director of a hospital) and her husband is an easy 75 pounds overweight and some kind of rank-and-file finance guy. In three major respects, looks, earnings, and "job status" he's at a lower level than

This happens often enough that I figure that simple "looks" is far less important to women than it is to men, and that many women are either willing to overlook some aspects of appearance or simply don't care.

I call this the "Billy Joel Syndrome"...remember how he, as a short, kinda ugly dude, was banging (and later married for awhile) Christie Brinkley?

So, thankfully for us guys, women aren't as visually hung up as we are about our prospective mates. I mean, you DO need to be somewhat presentable....but

This happens often enough that I figure that simple "looks" is far less important to women than it is to men, and that many women are either willing to overlook some aspects of appearance or simply don't care.

My wife and I participated in a couples group that focused on relationship and marriage. At one point, we were asked, "Are you turned on by your partner's looks?"

All the men said, "You bet we are!"

ALL the women said, "not at all."

Us guys were really surprised by this. It's not that they weren't turned on by their husbands, it's that it was other attributes that did it for them.

What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.

The problem here is that there's no way for an algorithm to know these things about someone. No one puts on their online dating profile, "I'm a cheap-ass, I have terrible manners, and I still have issues about my ex-wife even though we divorced 15 years ago." They only put the good parts. They even dress up the photos, like showing only their face in particular artful poses if they're obese, so you can't easily tell that from the photos.

That won't work: it requires too much honesty and information from all the participants. People are famous for lying on online dating sites: men always say they're 2 inches taller than they are, and women always minimize how fat they are (by calling themselves "curvy" instead of "obese") and lie about their age. If the dating site can't even get honest information about peoples' physical characteristics and ages, how do you expect to get honest feedback about dates from participants? The guy who stood up

Yes and no. When it comes to physical attractiveness, if you take someone, and then have N randomly selected other people rate their attractiveness, you'll get a mean and a standard deviation. Of course that's not the most important thing to you (or your possible partner) as only your opinion matters (though the mean will of course affect how much attention someone gets).

Ok, that part's obvious, but there is an interesting effect. I wish I could find a link to the study, but I can't right now. Basically, if

This doesn't take into account chemistry, which is where feeling love comes from. If you want the logical mate, then sure you can probably create something like this. If you want a real match, you'll also need to send in hormones and blood samples for testing. It would probably also help if people didn't lie so much online.

For people downvoting above - the reason you are still single is because you have unrealistically high opinion of your own charm, attractiveness, generosity, and achievements. Relationships are about getting along and building trust, not about putting yourself on a pedestal with a puffed-up profile. Unlike job interviews, it hurts relationships to over-sell yourself by introducing inevitable disappointment and distrust at the very early stages of it.

> the reason you are still single is because you have unrealistically high opinion of your own charm

As opposed to " the reason you are still single is because you don't try"? Arrogance, which is what you're describing, can actually help. It can provide the confidence to actually ask out potential dates, to believe that you're worth spending time with, and get you past failures. Never trying is guaranteed failure, and it's too common.

Totally wrong. Arrogance and lying actually work really well for many men. Those men get laid a lot more than the honest and humble men. You can debate whether it's worth it in the long term or not (he might be stuck with multiple child-support payments in his 40s), but it is a winning reproductive and dating strategy.

This reminds me of the old story about college roommates going to a party. The guy who drove immediately walks up to a babe and whispers in her ear, and gets slapped. Walks up to another, gets slapped again. The other guy shakes his head and goes to get a beer and find a conversation. Later, having gotten nowhere and wondering about his ride home, he looks for the first guy and can't find him anywhere. Finally the driver reappears with a smile on his face, and in no mood to leave. "Why not? Aren't yo

Reminds me of that Fix TV show where a woman married a millionaire sight unseen. When they got home she found and ordinary house with a discarded toilet in the back yard, she found an ordinary looking woman under the heavy studio make-up.

Kind of like job interviews. It's not that hard, really: if they don't like you after you're in the door, you've still gotten out of your mom's basement for a day and had a chance to steal some pens. It also gets you a chance to talk to the people who actually *work* at the company, who know what department actually needs your real job skills. Same with "si8ngles" dating. Even if the "single" is a real brown bagger, she may have friends who are interesting to meet and will "rescue" their friend by distracti

Being recently divorced (last year), I started poking around at the various dating sites. Let's see, I don't smoke, I effectively don't drink alcohol (one beer a year doesn't make me a "drinker"), I'm a gamer (you'd be amazed at the number of women who think gamers are "childish"), and I'm not into sports (lots of women who go to football/baseball/hockey games). I do like going hiking in the mountains, snowshoes, skiing, I like bicycling. But I'm not a fitness fanatic which also eliminated quite a few women. I'm not religious which eliminated a few more.

After eliminating the mis-matches, I started paring down the other issues. Based on profiles, I got down to about 60 women in the area who might be an match based on shared interests. I received no replies to my e-mails but I did receive three unrelated emails. One from a women in Australia. One from a woman in Texas who had pictures of her daughter leaning on a car (which was a bit creepy). And one from a woman who plays guitars who appeared to be looking for a man in every city.

Amusingly on my birthday (hit 56), my match list dropped to zero. Every one of the women were looking for guys 55 or younger. So I expanded my search until I got to a couple of women in a 250 mile radius.

For some of us (a small percentage I suppose), the dating sites really aren't helping. And since women receive all the emails, they have the choice of who to go out with.

Humorously I was chosen to moderate pictures on okcupid for a bit. The guys do send some very suggestive emails (and some not so suggestive!).

Sorry to hear that. Being alone sucks, it's as simple as that. The best thing that you can do is act like you have a shit-ton of money (somehow) and more than likely, you'll get some 20-something-yo chick.

Happiness is something that's you can achieve however, and it has nothing to do with other people. Best of luck either way.

Actually I'm pretty satisfied with where my life is right now. I hadn't intended on hitting the dating sites but was curious as that's where I met my ex back in '99. And honestly being alone is actually pretty good. I can sit at home and read a book without feeling guilty about not _doing_something_. Plus I've done a lot of work around the house and yard that were off limits in the past.

So really, I'm good right now. And I think that's what's important. Being good with yourself and eventually (or not) the r

Being recently divorced (last year), I started poking around at the various dating sites. Let's see, I don't smoke, I effectively don't drink alcohol (one beer a year doesn't make me a "drinker"), I'm a gamer (you'd be amazed at the number of women who think gamers are "childish"), and I'm not into sports (lots of women who go to football/baseball/hockey games). I do like going hiking in the mountains, snowshoes, skiing, I like bicycling. But I'm not a fitness fanatic which also eliminated quite a few women

I figured the women who like sports and dogs (where are all the cat girls:D ) are doing so to attract guys. I grew up with cats and have a bit of anxiety around dogs, mostly from a pretty good scare when I was a kid.

Yea, I came to the age conclusion too. I don't know how to "act my age". Much of what I find enjoyable is associated with the younger crowd. Heck, quite a few folks seem honestly surprised when they discover my age and estimate it at 10 years younger.

Actually, I just thought of something for you: have you tried Meetup.com? Around my area, there's tons of hiking/outdoor groups on Meetup, and a lot of people (of all ages) seem to use these hiking groups as singles mixers. You don't have to be single to go on hikes, but a lot of the people I meet on there seem to be. I've met lots of older (50+) women on the hikes I've been on.

I actually have considered it. I'm a co-organizer for probably the biggest gaming Meetup site in our area (almost 900 members:) ). So I'm familiar with meetup.com. One of my friends is a member of one of the sites. I think part of that problem is they are _hiking_ meetups and not 'strolling' meetups. While I do like to hike. I'm not good with 20 milers:) I am checking out the others though to see if there's a less strenuous one.

No, if you want to meet single women, you have to find the "beginner's" or less-strenuous hikes. You're probably not going to meet many women at the advanced, technical hikes. I don't like the 20-milers either; 5 miles is good for me, 10 is the absolute max. People don't go on the fast-paced hikes to chit-chat and meet people. Just join all the hiking (or general outdoors) meetups in your area, and ignore the hikes that say "no beginners", "fast paced, no sweeper", "advanced", have a huge elevation chan

So you'll probably not read this reply as you're an AC, however if you do, check out the Denver RPG Group. Over 800 members and the calendar is full of gaming events from local stores to individual groups. We (the organizers) are very _very_ picky about who we let join the group. Heck, we've given away the free swag we got from companies like Wizards of the Coast plus we created a dice run commemorating our 1,000th game.

As somebody who became single in his mid-50s I strongly second the recommendation for meetup groups.They aren't exclusively for single people, but singles are very "over-represented".Obviously you want to choose the groups with a large number of people of your favorite gender group.For me (looking for a woman) the hiking and the arts related groups were good.Even if you don't find dates, you'll likely have a good time and meet new friends.Meetup groups give you a low-stress way (because they're not primaril

Sorry, but this is BS. While I don't deny there may be some scamming going on, what you're suggesting is akin to saying, "don't use the internet, it's 100% spam" because you get some spam emails from Nigerians once in a while.

I've been on dozens of Meetup hikes and other events. None of them were "spam", organized by real estate agents, or anything of the kind. Did you look to see how long the groups you joined had been in existence? Did they have any comments posted by other members? Most decent group

Now you're acting like multiple people, responding twice to my post in quick succession, even though you're obviously the same person. Again, I encourage you to seek psychological help as soon as possible.

I'm in my 40's and married, but back when I tried seriously using a few of the dating sites (never was willing to pay for the commercial ones, but gave sites like PoF and OKCupid a shot) -- I ran across a general theme for the individual who'd find the most success there. Basically, the formula seemed to be:

1. Into sports2. Posted at least one sexy/arousing type photo instead of only head-shots3. Somewhere in the "under 35" age range4. Liked to "go out for a few beers/drinks" (but not "drink heavily", of co

I don't think I was over the top with the gamer thing. What I did was check out the questions and answers on okcupid. One of the questions was about gaming and if the answer was "childish", I clicked the 'not interested' filter. Since gaming (board gaming, role playing, miniatures (not warhammer though), and cards (not Magic/etc)) is probably the defining thing in my life, it pretty much becomes the gatekeeper to asking someone out. If gaming is 'Childish', then we'll do nothing but argue about the number o

"His algorithm takes into account both a user's tastes (in an approach similar to the Netflix recommendation engine) and their attractiveness (by analyzing how many responses they get) — enabling the machine to 'learn' and hence propose higher potential matches."

So, in other words, the machine will tell you, "Hey dude, you might as well talk to this homely girl, because we've analyzed your interests and your apparent attractiveness and you're not going to do any better than this".

I'm guessing that Search Engine Optimization (SEO) techniques would come into play whereby geeks could artificially inflate their relevance/attractiveness to game the system. Once again the nerds get the supermodels... right?

I pretty much came in here to say this. People already game the system in so many intricate ways, but those ways at least are social engineering techniques that mean you at least have to have a clue about how people tick (and thus in a social situation, like a date, you can reasonably hold your own/not suck at being a conversationalist). But if you're optimizing against a machine algorithm the sky's the limit. Make a few fake profiles and hit yourself up to increase your attractiveness score, or convince

2. Not a midget. (How the hell did I end up on a blind date with a midget? It was like going out with a child, I think my 7 year old niece is taller. Before anybody asks it's true, I've actually been on a blind date with a little person, I'm not being sarcastic about that.)

Apparently it's going to be difficult to find both of those in 1 girl.

As it stands, I only get replies from bots and eharmony has scientifically proven that nobody on the face of the planet is compatible with me. Yes, I am serious. Yes, this is the main reason I brew very strong, very high quality mead. Inside work, I'm a meaningless drone in a stagnant occupation. Outside of work, the only company I keep is a three gallon jar. It's not a good conversationalist but it has a greater capacity for thought than my co-workers, which is something.

This is where evolution backfired. It used to be the case that physical characteristics highly correlated with reproductive success, so we are hard-wired to look for them. Sometimes this takes strange detours into fetishes-obsessions, but most of the time we just looking for "good looking".

I think there is some truth to this. I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists. On the other hand, female cheerleaders make me cringe and despair. You don't think there is a strong correlation between attractiveness and personal qualities/careers/etc.?

I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists....You don't think there is a strong correlation between attractiveness and personal qualities/careers/etc.?

Let us say that intelligence and attractiveness are uncorrelated.

The probability of being both at once is very low, since you're multiplying the two small independent probabilities associated with attractiveness and intelligence.

If, of course you chose any segment of the population not selected specifically for attractiveness, then the probability of any given member being attractive is low.

Drop-dead gorgeous female scientists and engineers are particularly rare because (a) female scientists and enigneers are rare and (b) drop-dead gorgeousness is rare. Even uncorrelated if you multiply those tow probabilities, a small number results.

If you have something where members are chosen for attractiveness then yes, the average member will be more attractive than the average.

Would I say that my fellow scientists and engineers are on average less attractive than a random sampling of the population? That's a hard call. There are whole segments of the population that I rarely mix with which makes such things hard to judge. I never have cause to visit grim, deprived, crime ridden former mining towns of the North for example. But I haven't noticed any particular difference. There's one guy in my office you could easily tell from the outside (long hair, overweight and wearing anime t-shirts is kind of a give away). The rest not so much.

Actually there is likely to be a positive correlation between attractiveness & intelligence, because we have evolved to look for healthy mates who are like to reproduce well. For example lack of symmetry tends (so there are plenty of counter examples, but they do not undermine the argument) to be associated with an underlying health problem. Also around the world men tend to consider women with a particular hip to waist ratio as being the most attractive - research found that more that women deviated

That's because smart and gorgeous women know that those professions are underpaid and undervalued in Western (particularly American) society, so they avoid them (they also want to avoid all the sexual harassment). Instead, these women go into the medical field. I've met several nearly drop-dead gorgeous female physicians. And they certainly get better pay and better job security than I do as an engineer, while not being surrounded by creepy men or brogrammers.

There's a couple of problems here. 1) OKC doesn't have any way of blocking or filtering out people with kids, which apparently you're not open to (which is fine, it's a valid choice as a single man, esp. if you're younger; it gets unrealistic as you get older). From what I've seen, they only let you block people's messages if they're too far away from you. It'd be nice if there were more controls this way to block out people with deal-breakers (smoking, etc.) 2) There's no way for OKC to tell if someone